[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Priority-Regression policy

From: Patrick McCarty
Subject: Re: Priority-Regression policy
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:34:37 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On 2009-11-29, Graham Percival wrote:
> What's the feeling amongst developers about what should be ranked
> as priority-Regression (and thus stop a release) ?  In particular,
> should *everything* that used to work -- even if it was by
> accident? -- be ranked a Regression?

Maybe we could add labels indicating which release an issue blocks?
This is what Mozilla does for their products.

Like "2.14-blocker", "3.0-blocker", etc. as well as

> For example,
> - markup \note in time signature: worked in 2.10, currently
>   Defect-Low.

If I'm reading this correctly, it worked in 2.8, not 2.10.

As you can tell from the comments on this issue, a *proper* solution
is going to be very involved, so I can't see this happening in the
near future.  This might get fixed before 2.16 (or whatever is after

> - Tie direction: worked in 2.10 (by accident?), currently 
>   Enhancement-Low.

Not sure about this one.  Either it worked in 2.10 by accident, or it
is a regression in 2.11.  I don't know enough about this code to make
a call.

> I don't particularly mind which way we decide, but I'd like it to
> be consistent, and I'm going to insist that if something is
> Priority-Regression, it blocks a release.

IMO, regressions from 2.13 should get first priority and should block
2.14, but other regressions should be considered on a case-by-case


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]